Schweitzer, however, _compelled_ attention by the publication in 1906 of a much larger work entitled, _“Von Reimarus zu Wrede,”_ which is a history of the study of the life of Jesus during the last century. A work like this, practically the only one of its sort, supplied a felt need and could not be passed by without notice. Schweitzer’s own view, however, though it was presented clearly in this volume, was still not taken due account of in Germany. Jülicher’s supercilious criticism in _“Neue Linien”_ (190—) is characteristic of the treatment it received. The translator knows of no prominent scholar in Germany who has cordially welcomed Schweitzer’s view, nor of any that has thoroughly and ably opposed it. They have been occupied there rather with Wrede’s_(_1_)_acute criticism of the messianic element in the Gospels [pg 020] and with the denial by Drews_(_2_)_and others of the historical existence of Jesus. To destructive criticism of this sort Schweitzer’s own work is the best answer. The only work which seriously reckons with this new point of view is a brief but magisterial book by H. J. Holtzmann: _Das messianische Bewusstsein Jesu,_ 1907. Very different was the reception of Schweitzer’s latter work in England. The interest there centred at once upon Schweitzer’s own view. In 1907, the year after its publication, Professor Sanday delivered a course of lectures at Oxford and Cambridge in which he enthusiastically accepted Schweitzer’s position with hardly a reservation._(_3_)_In 1910 this second work of Schweitzer’s was translated into English and published under the title: _The Quest of the Historical Jesus,_ with a preface by Professor Burkitt. By this time the interest in Schweitzer and his theory had become a furore among the younger men in Oxford and Cambridge. But just then there came an emissary from Germany, Professor Ernst von Dobschütz, who essayed to disprove Schweitzer’s theory in a course of lectures delivered at [pg 021] Oxford in 1909._(_4_)_Whereupon Professor Sanday, in a pathetic article in the _Hibbert Journal_ for October, 1911, retracted his support of Schweitzer’s position. He felt that he had been over hasty in adopting it. And so indeed it seems he was, for it appears that in preparing his lectures he had not taken the pains to read the “Sketch,” that is to say, Schweitzer’s first and fundamental and most carefully reasoned argument for his view. By the same token Canon Sanday seems to have been over hasty in making his retraction, for he had not _yet_ read the “Sketch,”—and von Dobschütz’ criticism after all is not very impressive.